18 Cited authorities

Ryan v. New York Tel. Co.
62 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 1,609 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that for an issue to be deemed identical “it must be the point actually to be determined in the second action or proceeding such that a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first.”
D'Arata v. N Y Cent. Fire Ins. Co.
76 N.Y.2d 659 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 611 times
Holding that collateral estoppel is grounded on concepts of fairness and should not be rigidly or mechanically applied
Liss v. Trans Auto Systems, Inc.
68 N.Y.2d 15 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 218 times
In Liss v. Trans Auto Systems, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 15, 20-21, 505 N.Y.S.2d 831, 496 N.E.2d 851 (1986), the New York Court of Appeals held that the Board has primary jurisdiction regarding the availability of Workers' Compensation and plaintiff must litigate this issue before the Board.
In the Matter of Abady
22 A.D.3d 71 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) Cited 60 times
Noting that the New York "Court of Appeals and numerous appellate courts in [New York] have upheld the use of collateral estoppel in [disciplinary] proceedings" and barring a lawyer from re-litigating before the disciplinary committee whether he had violated, inter alia, DR 1-102, DR 1-102 and DR 7-106 on the basis of findings that led to sanctions by the New York Supreme Court
Werner v. State of New York
53 N.Y.2d 346 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 85 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that " claimant who applies for, is awarded and accepts workers' compensation . . . benefits is barred by the exclusive remedy and finality provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law from maintaining a [judicial] action against [his employer] for intentional assault."
Clemens v. Apple
65 N.Y.2d 746 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 73 times
Emphasizing that the parties against whom preclusion was sought "freely chose the arbitration forum, although a judicial forum was, and remained, available at the time arbitration was sought"
Lee v. Jones
230 A.D.2d 435 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) Cited 37 times
In Lee v. Jones, 230 AD2d 435 (3rd Dept 1997), plaintiff, an acquaintance of a contractor was injured after falling from a ladder while assisting the contractor.
Hinchey v. Sellers
7 N.Y.2d 287 (N.Y. 1959) Cited 118 times
Finding privity “by virtue of the indemnitor-indemnitee relationship existing between an insurer and an insured”
Rigopolous v. American Museum of Nat. History
297 A.D.2d 728 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002) Cited 25 times
In Rigopolous v American Museum of Natural History (297 A.D.2d 728), the Workers' Compensation Board determined that the plaintiff's accident occurred while he was standing on the ground, which collaterally estopped him from later asserting a cause of action for elevation-related liability under Labor Law § 240.
O'Connor v. Midiria
55 N.Y.2d 538 (N.Y. 1982) Cited 53 times
In O'Connor we also dismissed an action against a supervisory employee of the same employer, who was not himself accused of intentional misconduct, but was sued on the theory that he knew of the offender's "propensity" for such misconduct (55 NY2d at 540).

Maria Auqui,, et al., Respondents,v.Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership, et al., Appellants.

18 Cited authorities

Holding that for an issue to be deemed identical “it must be the point actually to be determined in the second action or proceeding such that a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first.”

Holding that collateral estoppel is grounded on concepts of fairness and should not be rigidly or mechanically applied

In Liss v. Trans Auto Systems, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 15, 20-21, 505 N.Y.S.2d 831, 496 N.E.2d 851 (1986), the New York Court of Appeals held that the Board has primary jurisdiction regarding the availability of Workers' Compensation and plaintiff must litigate this issue before the Board.

Holding that " claimant who applies for, is awarded and accepts workers' compensation . . . benefits is barred by the exclusive remedy and finality provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law from maintaining a [judicial] action against [his employer] for intentional assault."

Emphasizing that the parties against whom preclusion was sought "freely chose the arbitration forum, although a judicial forum was, and remained, available at the time arbitration was sought"

In Lee v. Jones, 230 AD2d 435 (3rd Dept 1997), plaintiff, an acquaintance of a contractor was injured after falling from a ladder while assisting the contractor.

Finding privity “by virtue of the indemnitor-indemnitee relationship existing between an insurer and an insured”

In O'Connor we also dismissed an action against a supervisory employee of the same employer, who was not himself accused of intentional misconduct, but was sued on the theory that he knew of the offender's "propensity" for such misconduct (55 NY2d at 540).